[JPKC]

A law should be passed introducing a new protocol for the government when making contracts with private sector companies that require the latter to supply something. This regulation should ensure that decisions about procurements are made in the best interests of the British economy, and would compliment European Union law on the same issue.

The government's current interpretation of EU law has them acting in the following way: Firstly, when they need to purchase a service or product, they are legally obligated to allow bids from companies in the EU; European law also insists that these bids be considered fairly. The government interprets this as meaning that they have to choose the cheapest offer - this is not the case under EU law, as they are perfectly able to include other factors in their consideration (for example, the economic effects for Britain). France is an example of a European counry that consistently does this.

This petition calls upon the House to introduce a new law that would prevent procurement decisions being made in a self-immolating manner. The government (or a body explicitly operating on its behalf) should not make decisions that outsource contracts to companies abroad out of a short-term desire to cut expenditure, as this can have longer-term effects on the British economy (i.e. the loss of skills and jobs in certain sectors of industry) - this can then adversely effect tax revenue.

This would affect all departments in the government, though the MoD, DfT and Home Office would see the most change. The need for such a new regulation can be questioned, as there is nothing stopping the government from doing this at the moment, however, there is demonstrable evidence that government departments act in ways that all too often pursue the interests of their balance sheet rather than that of the nation and government as a whole.

[Rakas21]

I am not very keen on protectionism although there may be some things that could be changed.

Interesting.

[Morgsie]

As the Above.

The Siemens/Bombardier Contract row springs to mind.

[jsb123]

It would be possible for procurement to be considered with other factors; under the original Treaty of Rome, I recall, only discrimination on national grounds is forbidden, as well as the ambiguous "fair". British suppliers would still have to be competitive, as the Government (certainly the Home Office) would not be held to ransom on the promise of future revenue. British companies should be encouraged, I agree, but there is a line that must be drawn before, as those above comment, protectionism arises.

I think it's certainly something that needs review.

[Morgsie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...ties_Directive

[jsb123]

There is a threshold before the EC rules apply, I believe. About £4,000,000 for public works. Not a great deal in Government spending terms, though.

[Thunder and Jazz]

Oh god no. Protectionism is an awful idea.

Not that we actually have an EU here, making this slightly moot (though IMO it's still a valid thing to consider).

[TheCrackInTime]

To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather the government get the best possible value for money when spending our taxes, rather than simply wasting money by making protectionist gestures for short-term political gain.

[tehFrance]

Where do you think you are? France

Protectionism has no place in this country, in these hard times the government wants to spend as little as it can for the best service... if that means giving a contract to a French or German company over a British one then so be it. As much as I hate to say it but costs come first although economically it makes sense to have a protectionist stance.

I shall abstain on this issue throughout.

Edit: No longer MP, can ignore my abstention.

[MacDaddi]

If British companies can't offer the best price - it's their problem.

[TopHat]

This isn't necessarily protectionism. Rather, at the moment we are strictly limited to determining what we purchase based on immediate price. We are incapable of taking into effect the long-run impact of any such decision. A reinterpretation could lead to Britain being able to take a more long-term stance by supporting companies which promise better future returns. The reason Bombardier cost more than Siemens, for example, was because Siemens had a better credit rating [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16178039]. However, if Bombardier had been seen to have such a customer as the British government, it is likely the credit rating would have improved, drawing it in line with Siemens in the long-run.

That said, I think the wording is sufficiently vague that it probably would eventually turn to protectionism. Perhaps if there were some way of defining the petition a little more clearly, I could support it. As it is, I'd go No.

[Jarred]

I feel that this is pure protectionist, economic nationalism.
Quite frankly I don't think we should spend even more of the taxpayers money just to fulfill our patriotic desire to ensure business stays here in the UK. The government has a duty to keep expenditure as low as possible as far as I am concerned, and thus deals should go to the lowest bidder.

But let's just propose that we did put something like this into law. Let's say we had a situation where we tried to keep deals localised to here in the UK. What would happen? The prices that businesses would charge would skyrocket because they are now almost guarenteed a sale; our patriotic pledge to protect British business at the cost of the taxpayer would just lead to oligopolistic businesses over here forcing our hand and pushing up the prices our government has to pay. This would be very bad news for the taxpayer and would drive our costs up and up; thus driving taxes up and up; thus driving economic growth down. But greater competition with no government restriction on who gets the deal is a good thing for taxpayers as prices are driven down and also standards are driven up as the companies try to compete.

[JPKC]

This is only marginal protectionism, and it certainly isn't economic nationalism, and it certainly isn't called for out of short-term political gain.

Practically all governments operate with a degree of protectionism, I've already given France as an example, and America is another poignant one (even if its policies are cloaked in the 'global' interests of institutions like the WTO). Britain is late to the party.

As for the motivation behind the propositions here, its much less about any short-term gain. It's more about maintaining our economic strength rather than sacrificing it to the destructive forces of the free market - every robust market is a regulated one, and regulations must serve the people of the nation. It's the ultimate incompetency to betray the national interest for a dogmatic belief in market fundamentalism.

Call it demagoguery, but sometimes the demagogues have a point.

[Thunder and Jazz]

It's not 'demagoguery' so much as poor economics.

[Metrobeans]

Division!!